J.M.H. v. J.L.W. IV

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/07/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090951 J.M.H. v. J.L.W. IV Appeal from Madison D i s t r i c t (CS-09-65) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . J.M.H. ("the mother") a p p e a l s from the Madison District Court's judgment e s t a b l i s h i n g h e r c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and the child-support obligation o f J.L.W. IV ("the f a t h e r " ) 2090951 concerning the trial the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d court's parties facts on intimate are July moved out On of Procedural undisputed. 14, the 2008. father's 21, The child f o r pendente the mother filed on was p a r t i e s were born an trial involved o r June 2 0 0 9 and the lite answer court D e c e m b e r 15, to the in an continued to the mother house. 2009, request hearing The u n t i l May and The reverse History father to e s t a b l i s h p a t e r n i t y , c h i l d father. We u n t i l September 2009, at w h i c h time September petition and relationship reside together child"). judgment. Facts The ("the set a the 2009. On On a "verified child custody, relief." and filed support, October counterclaim matter for D e c e m b e r 17, 9, 2009, against the a pendente lite 2009, the trial court entered a pendente l i t e order a d j u d i c a t i n g the f a t h e r to be father child and the joint legal legal and court reserved a final On which of the physical custody of awarding the the child. " i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g payment of c h i l d parties The trial support" for hearing. May ore 10, tenus 2010, the evidence trial was court held a final presented. 2 The hearing parties at each 2090951 presented as evidence Child-Support-Obligation Statement/Affidavit forms monthly income. mother's monthly gross that she the he or child. gross not income On on physical pertinent Form CS-41 $858 in monthly health-insurance indicating indicated employment work-related expenses $541.67 per and $148.18 account 25, The month of the 2010, trial c u s t o d y of the her income and child-care account income per month in of monthly and i n monthly work-related that child- health-insurance child. the court on their that indicated that his t o t a l e d $2,762.93 i n employment May judgment. any CS-41) f a t h e r ' s F o r m CS-41 expenses expenses totaled incur monthly The incurred care income did expenses The (Form Income trial court entered awarded the p a r t i e s j o i n t child. The trial court a legal and also held, in part: " C h i l d s u p p o r t has been c a l c u l a t e d by applying Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration. After applying said calculations, a c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n f o r e a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s was recommended. I t i s the C o u r t ' s i n t e n t i o n t h a t [ t h e f a t h e r ] pay t o [ t h e m o t h e r ] t h e amount recommended b y a p p l y i n g R u l e 32 c a l c u l a t i o n s d u r i n g a n y periods of time t h a t the minor c h i l d i s i n the physical custody of [ t h e mother]. I t i s the C o u r t ' s i n t e n t i o n t h a t [ t h e m o t h e r ] pay to [ t h e f a t h e r ] the amount r e c o m m e n d e d b y a p p l y i n g R u l e 32 c a l c u l a t i o n s d u r i n g any p e r i o d s o f t i m e t h a t t h e m i n o r c h i l d i s i n t h e 3 final 2090951 p h y s i c a l custody of [ t h e f a t h e r ] . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s Ordered t h a t [ t h e f a t h e r ] s h a l l pay t o [ t h e m o t h e r ] the sum o f $ 3 2 . 0 0 ( T h i r t y - T w o D o l l a r s ) p e r month, which represents the d i f f e r e n c e in calculations u n d e r R u l e 32. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e m o n t h l y child s u p p o r t payment, [ t h e f a t h e r ] s h a l l c o n t i n u e p a y i n g work-related daycare expenses Said child s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s s h a l l be a p p l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y t o t h e m o n t h o f S e p t e m b e r , 2 0 0 9 , c r e a t i n g an a r r e a r a g e o b l i g a t i o n of [ t h e f a t h e r ] to [ t h e mother] i n the t o t a l amount o f $ 2 8 8 . 0 0 . " On June alter, that 8, the mother amend, o r v a c a t e the support trial P. court obligations m o t i o n was Civ. 2010, filed the t r i a l had tenus court's miscalculated under Rule The mother trial court judgment, 1 the p a r t i e s ' 3 2 , A l a . R. d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . to arguing child- Jud. Admin.; that See R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. appealed. Standard The a postjudgment motion entered of Review i t s judgment after receiving ore testimony. The m o t h e r s t y l e d h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n as a " M o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend o r v a c a t e f i n a l o r d e r p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P." However, t h e m o t i o n was f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n a l j u d g m e n t and was, i n b o t h f o r m and s u b s t a n c e , a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n and i s c o n s i d e r e d as s u c h by t h i s c o u r t . See M o r r i s o n v. P h i l l i p s , 992 So. 2d 743, 744 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (A m o t i o n p u r p o r t e d l y f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h a t f a i l s t o " a l l e g e any g r o u n d j u s t i f y i n g r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.," i s , " i n b o t h f o r m a n d s u b s t a n c e , a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n . " ) . 1 4 2090951 "'"'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s findings on disputed facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on those f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s or m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water W o r k s & S a n i t a r y S e w e r B d . v . P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v . F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2 d 4 2 9 , 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. State, 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002)). '"The presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e is insufficient evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l court to s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' W a l t m a n v . R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1 0 8 3 , 1086 (Ala. 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v . D o b b s , 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , the ore tenus r u l e does not extend to cloak with a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l j u d g e ' s c o n c l u s i o n s of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law to the facts.' W a l t m a n v . R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1 0 8 6 . " Retail Inc., Developers 985 So. of Alabama, 2d 924, 929 LLC (Ala. v. East Gadsden G o l f Club, 2007). Discussion The its m o t h e r a r g u e s on calculation u n d e r R u l e 32, the record a CS-42)]." court's the completed mother trial arrearage of "the also trial argues of court the trial Guidelines that, based parties' the c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments. in obligations c o u r t d i d not miscalculated 5 court erred child-support [Child-Support miscalculation the t h a t the parties' noting that The obligations, father's of appeal on include in form (Form the trial child-support amount o f We agree. the 2090951 In Hayes v. Hayes, 2006), this court 949 So. 2d 150, 154-55 (Ala. Civ. stated: " T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t i f the r e c o r d does not r e f l e c t c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 3 2 ( E ) , A l a . R. Jud. Admin. (which r e q u i r e s the f i l i n g of ' C h i l d Support O b l i g a t i o n Income S t a t e m e n t / A f f i d a v i t ' f o r m s (Forms CS-41) and a ' C h i l d S u p p o r t G u i d e l i n e s ' f o r m (Form C S - 4 2 ) ) , a n d i f c h i l d s u p p o r t i s made an i s s u e on appeal, this court will remand (or r e v e r s e and r e m a n d ) f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e r u l e . See M a r t i n v . M a r t i n , 637 So. 2 d 9 0 1 , 903 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1994). On the other hand, this court has affirmed c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d s when, d e s p i t e t h e a b s e n c e of the required forms, we could discern from the a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d what f i g u r e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t u s e d in computing the child-support o b l i g a t i o n . See, e . g . , Dunn v . D u n n , 891 So. 2 d 8 9 1 , 896 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ; R i m p f v . C a m p b e l l , 853 So. 2 d 9 5 7 , 959 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; and D i s m u k e s v. D o r s e y , 686 So. 2 d 2 9 8 , 301 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , without the c h i l d - s u p p o r t - g u i d e l i n e s forms, i t i s sometimes impossible f o r an appellate court to determine from the r e c o r d whether the t r i a l court c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d the g u i d e l i n e s i n e s t a b l i s h i n g or m o d i f y i n g a c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . See H o r w i t z v . Horwitz, 739 So. 2d 1118, 1120 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). "The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e c o n t a i n s o n l y one F o r m CS-41 p r e p a r e d b y t h e f a t h e r ; i t r e f l e c t s an a m o u n t between $1,200 and $1,400 in monthly income. However, the judgment e x p r e s s l y n o t e d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had imputed a m o n t h l y income t o the f a t h e r of $4,417 and t h a t t h e a c t u a l m o n t h l y income o f t h e mother t o t a l e d $3,245. C a l c u l a t i n g the father's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r R u l e 32 b a s e d s o l e l y on h i s p e r c e n t a g e s h a r e o f t h e p a r t i e s ' combined i n c o m e s (as r e f l e c t e d i n t h e j u d g m e n t ) w o u l d r e s u l t in a child-support o b l i g a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater t h a n $625 p e r m o n t h . I n f a c t , no a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e 6 App. 2090951 i n c o m e f i g u r e s s p e c i f i e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o t h e s c h e d u l e of b a s i c c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s i n the child-support g u i d e l i n e s supports t h e $625 m o n t h l y c h i l d - s u p p o r t a w a r d , and the t r i a l court d i d not expressly state that i t had deviated from the g u i d e l i n e s o r s t a t e a n y r e a s o n s why a d e v i a t i o n f r o m t h e g u i d e l i n e s w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y . See A p p e n d i x t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . Admin.; see a l s o M o s l e y v. M o s l e y , 770 So. 2d 638, 640 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000). "Accordingly, we must reverse the judgment modifying the child-support a w a r d and remand the cause f o r the t r i a l court to p r o p e r l y determine the father's prospective child-support obligation in c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 32, A l a . R. Jud. Admin. The trial c o u r t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , compute the o b l i g a t i o n a c c o r d i n g to the g u i d e l i n e s or e x p r e s s l y state the reasons why a deviation from the guidelines i s necessary in this case. See also H a r m o n v . H a r m o n , 928 So. 2d 295 (Ala. Civ. App. 2 00 5)." In the respective court record father does form (Form that the obligations resulted in child $32 per of Rule 32(E), a how As the parties' in calculating pay CS-42). conclusion month to include determine per able not to $32 not the after the o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r R u l e 32, In c o n t r a v e n t i o n Guidelines are case, child-support ordered support. the present the copy a 7 trial in child A l a . R. Jud. of Child-Support a as Admin., i n Hayes, we court a r r i v e d at i t s respective child-support father's support. the month result, trial parties' The being obligated trial court's to pay judgment 2090951 i n d i c a t e s that the court conclusion. parties' However, support that with the Appendix to Rule court per Form the father month court in child father that guidelines child $32 per guidelines that i n his appellate court deviated brief from should would the pay 42 that So. a be i t s reasons See R u l e 3 2 ( A ) ( i i ) , child-support the trial before $32 this child-support $32 p e r month court to deviate i n the Appendix to t o make an e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n and t o s t a t e (holding i n the in inequitable 2010) child the father of the g u i d e l i n e s Sexton, in at application v. month contained However, i n o r d e r f o r a t r i a l Sexton court's i n t h e A p p e n d i x t o R u l e 32 i n a r r i v i n g 32, i t i s r e q u i r e d guidelines. trial the t h a t the f a t h e r s h o u l d pay from the c h i l d - s u p p o r t g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h Rule from a r e u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e how argues set forth support. the at i t s support. the t r i a l conclusion information and pay child-support 3 2 , we the CS-41s arrived at i t s conclusion The its comparing respective determination a d h e r e d t o R u l e 32 i n a r r i v i n g 3d unjust for deviating from or the A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . ; s e e a l s o 1280 , trial manifestly that court 1283 n.4 "may ( A l a . C i v . App. deviate from the guidelines i f i t determines that a deviation i s 8 2090951 appropriate accordance and with trial court fact, i t states Rule i n the the t r i a l i t s reasons 32(A)(ii), present court f o r the A l a . R. case made no Jud. deviation in Admin."). such The f i n d i n g -- in s t a t e d i n i t s judgment t h a t the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s were " c a l c u l a t e d by a p p l y i n g R u l e o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f J u d i c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n " -- a n d , we must support conclude that i t did not deviate from 32 thus, the child- guidelines. Conclusion Based judgment on as to obligations father's the of the the and, arrearage cause foregoing, we amount of to the t r i a l court 32 and arrearage, may, in i f any, in Appendix to court's child-support amount payments, and determine of the remand the amount amount o f t h e the the parties' child-support Rule 9 32 The or the we o b l i g a t i o n s i n compliance determine to trial the of c h i l d - s u p p o r t payments. according the to to properly i t s d i s c r e t i o n , compute obligations forth to properly the parties' as child-support the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d - s u p p o r t Rule the consequently, of reverse with father's trial court child-support guidelines expressly state set the 2090951 reasons this why a deviation from the guidelines i s necessary i n case. The appeal mother's motion f o r an award of attorney fees on i s denied. REVERSED AND Thompson, REMANDED. P.J., and Pittman, concur. 10 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.